©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Glenn on radio today with a refreshing and much-needed approach: telling the truth, even if it's bad news. Sanford explained the reason behind the Freedom Caucus endorsing the latest version of Obamacare.
Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.
GLENN: So there was a disturbing news out of the White House yesterday. Yesterday, the Senate came and was briefed at the White House on North Korea. Some of the senators walked out and rolled their eyes. And they were quoted as saying, well, that was interesting. And not in a positive way.
No real word on -- on what happened, what the plan is. And couple that with another story that's coming out from the White House on how the president is briefed. And this is coming from an ally of Donald Trump inside the White House. And I have to tell you, Pat, your blood runs cold when you hear how he's briefed?
PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
GLENN: I mean, this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. We'll get into that.
Also, a guy who is turning out to be somebody that we can really seemingly count on to tell the truth and to stand up to the weasels in Washington is congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I don't believe he's ever been on the show before. We welcome him, beginning right now.
(music)
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. How are you, sir?
MARK: I'm good. Good to hear your voice.
GLENN: It's good to have you on. Let me just get this uncomfortable moment out from me. Out into the open.
I saw you quickly in the hallway a few years back. And at the time, I was still kind of mad at you for the stuff that, you know, we all went through and you went through. But I have to tell you, you have -- you have taken a situation that could have just destroyed anybody, and you have -- you have a real success and redemption story. And it's really nice to have you on.
MARK: Well, you're very, very kind.
Without going into it, I have been on a journey that involves both the grace of man and the grace of God.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: And it's a pretty good journey.
GLENN: Well, we're glad to have you on.
I want to talk about a couple of things. Because you're a free market Libertarian-minded congressman, which are getting harder and harder to find, at least it seems out here in the wild as we're looking in. You saw the tax plan. And you've heard more now, I'm sure, you know, on the Trumpcare plan. How are you feeling about things?
MARK: You know, I think from a conservative or Libertarian standpoint, a lot of us are concerned about where things go next.
A number of us have sort of stuck our finger in the dike trying to hold back the health care bill based on a belief from a process standpoint. Not being ready for prime time. There's a value to the back and forth that -- that may not be comfortable or fun. But there's a real value to that.
And, frankly, some of the consequent results that would have come with that bill in its original form. And on the tax bill, I think a number of us are concerned about its ramifications with regard to the deficit. I think we need to -- I mean, this is a huge opportunity, the idea of reforming taxes, but we need to do it within the context of not simultaneously blowing up the debt and the deficit, which is no longer talked about in Washington, DC.
GLENN: I think this is so frightening. We don't even have a budget. And in the period we haven't had a budget, we've increased the debt by $10 trillion.
You're right. Nobody is talking about it. And I'm sorry to say that the -- the whole economic principle of cutting taxes only really works when you put it in the context of Calvin Coolidge. You must cut spending first. That's the only thing that's going to give all of us confidence that we can relax and spend a little bit and create jobs.
MARK: You're absolutely right. Because what's really interesting, as we both know, a deficit is simply a delayed tax. You're just stacking the bill. But the idea of saying, we'll cut taxes on one hand. But we'll run bigger deficits on the other. The two wash each other out from an economic standpoint. And so the only-fashioned notion of saying, "Wait a minute. Let's begin with the beginning." It was actually Milton Friedman who once said, "The ultimate measure of government is what it spends." Now, it's not the only measure, but it's a pretty important measure because it's from there that we raise taxes to pay for -- deficits may come as a result between the two.
But what it spends is something that's not looked at in Washington, but I think it's still looked at very closely by folks across this country.
GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, as a small business man, we were talking about this yesterday. And everybody on the team said, "Well, you know, that will increase job creation, et cetera, et cetera." And as the guy who actually pays the bills and runs the business, I said, "Not as much, quite honestly, as you might think because I'm still going to hold an awful lot back from for a rainy day because I know the center won't hold. This is a game." The only ones that are really going to spend it are the ones that I think will take those taxes and pour it into the stock market or whatever they can pour it into, that will have short-term paper guns to make more money, but not to necessarily create more jobs, because they know at some point the music will stop.
MARK: Uh-huh.
We're in the fourth longest economic recovery in the history of our nation right now. And if you believe in, I guess what the statisticians call regression to the mean or what everyday folks call the law of averages, to your point, it won't go on forever. I think, again, it could be very helpful in terms of competitiveness of this country.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: I think it's an incredible opportunity. These opportunities don't roll around often.
And this is the fourth time in the history of our republic that Republicans have held the House, Senate, and White House. But I think we need to do it within the context of making sure we're watching on the spending front. And our budgets become more and more unrealistic as each year goes by. And they get harder and harder to -- to, in essence, bring to ballot over a 10-year time frame.
And it's important that, again, we do talk at some level about this old-fashioned notion of accumulating debt and deficit.
It is amazing right now -- it's almost like the three monkeys about hear no evil, I speak no evil, I think no evil, with regard to debt and deficit. It is something that is just not focused on in DC right now, but I think has real implications in terms of value of the dollar, in terms of future inflation, and ultimately our way of life.
GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of things on, the Freedom Caucus stood against -- and you stood against Obamacare. I'm sorry. Obamacare and Trumpcare.
MARK: Yeah.
GLENN: When Trumpcare was being pushed, you were actually threatened by Team Trump. They said that, if you didn't sign up, they would challenge you in the primary of 2018. And from what I understand, you said, "Go ahead." Now they're saying that the Freedom Caucus is starting to come on board. Is there something that we can actually look at, that is possibly decent?
MARK: Yeah. It's represented in this MacArthur Amendment whether or not that will ultimately get us up and over the top, I'm not sure. But I think that the Freedom Caucus -- well, I know the Freedom Caucus has come on board based on the belief of, one, let's tell the truth to the American public. The truth is we're not repealing the Affordable Care Act. Even though there had been a lot of fanfare when we had a Democratic president and it couldn't go into effect, you know, 60 votes to that effect in the House of Representatives, the bill that made its way all the way to the president, a lot of chest-beating saying, "We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal." When push comes to shove, now that we have the chance, they were not willing -- the conference was not willing to bring that bill forward.
And I think that the allies that I deal with in the Freedom Caucus pushed awfully hard on that, saying, wait. This is something that is clear consensus in the House, the Senate. We've done it multiple times. But for whatever reason, that isn't where we were. This other bill moved forward. It wasn't, as I say, ready for prime time. It had a number of different deficiencies that I think would have hurt people who rely on the individual marketplace for their insurance.
And in essence, this MacArthur Amendment was an experiment in federalism. Getting it was called title one. And title one is really the central nervous system of what drives up cost in the individual marketplace and what, frankly, drives the Affordable Care Act. And our fight in --
GLENN: What is title one?
MARK: Title one basically deals with insurance being insurance. So if I said to you, we're going to -- you know, I'm going to give you great insurance. You know, great insurance. You have a 200,000-dollar house. But you've got to buy a million and a half dollar policy. You would say, that ain't great insurance for me. It might be great insurance, but it's not great insurance for me. Great insurance is the insurance that fits for me and for my family and those that I love.
And so what title one gets at is, all the different provisions that prevented insurance from being insurance. Insurance is not being able to buy your homeowner's policy when the house is on fire. You have to buy your homeowner's policy ahead of time to be covered.
And what the Affordable Care Act did is it said, you could wait until your house was on fire to buy a homeowner's policy. So title one was, again, letting -- preventing insurance from being insurance. And it was our belief that if you were ever going to, again, affect the cost of insurance for that small business person out there struggling to make it and struggling with fewer choices and rising premiums, you had to let insurance be insurance.
And so that's what the fight has been about. And what this MacArthur Amendment did was it said, okay. We'll split the baby. And we'll do a federalism experiment. States that want to let insurance be insurance, they can do that. States that don't, won't. If Vermont wants to go to a single-payer system, they may. If South Carolina wants to go to a more market-based system, they may. And that I think is the most you'll be able to get out of the conference. And at that point, the Freedom Caucus folded the cards and said, I guess, as of yesterday to be exact, we'll sign off on that particular measure. And that's where things are right now.
GLENN: Mark -- we're talking to Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina who is showing some real spine and some backbone and standing up for some real true conservative principles. I'd love to talk to you about the future of the party and where you think this is going and the -- and where Trump is going. But one of the pressing issues that I think we need to talk about is North Korea.
What is the temperature in Washington for North Korea? We, for the life of us, cannot come up with a way that this ends without at least a million dead.
MARK: Yeah. You can draw some really bad doomsday scenarios. There was actually a closed door Intel briefing yesterday afternoon on the Hill for members of Congress on this particular topic. And without going into that, I would just say that -- I -- I think we want to be careful about rattling this particular saber --
GLENN: No, I know.
MARK: At this point, North Korea does not have the capacity to bring harm to domestic US. And I think we need to put things within that particular framework as we look at and access threat.
GLENN: Do you believe this administration is looking at it like that?
MARK: I -- I think that they are most worried about what might happen there. And I think that they're thinking about preemptive -- preemptive steps to prevent something from happening.
GLENN: That doesn't sound good.
What is -- with everything, Mark, that is going on, the economy -- I have a woman on who was inside the Dallas fed. She wrote a great book. I don't know if you've seen it, called Fed Up. She was in Wall Street. And then she was one of the chief researchers for the head of the Dallas fed here in -- and saw, you know, 2008 coming a mile away. And she was laughed at until it happened. And then she was promoted.
And what she sees coming now is an absolute disaster financially. With that -- with the world on the edge, with -- with Russia and with a press that is no longer trusted, a government that is no longer trusted, what -- what keeps you up at night? And what keeps you optimistic?
MARK: What keeps me up at night is exactly -- I will make it a point to find this book Fed Up. It's fascinating.
But, you know, I would just presuppose that her philosophical alignment is to the right.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: But whether you're right or left on this issue -- I mean, it was interesting that Erskine Bowles, who was, you know, Clinton's former chief of staff at the time of the Bowles/Simpson commission, remarked that, you know, look, we're looking at the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.
If you think about Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman and joint of chief, his observation was -- when asked, what's the biggest threat to the United States? Not the Chinese. Excuse me -- not the Chinese, not the Taliban. But his answer was the American debt.
And so whether it's somebody who is a firsthand participant in the way that the fed works, with the right position, somebody from a military position, somebody from the left, the thing that we're not talking about right now is indeed the build-up of the debt. There's an interesting book if you have insomnia called At This Time, It's Different.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
MARK: And it was written by a professor from Harvard and a professor from Maryland, writer, and wrote often. Some of their methodologies have been questioned. But their largest premise is accurate. And they look at the last 800 years of financial history, as it relates to governments, and what they found is that in every instance, civilization has got to a tipping point where -- and they had to decide, do we go back to what made us competitive and perhaps a world power in the first place, or do we stay on this happy, but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and consumption? And nine times out of ten, they chose the easy path. They said, well, this time it's different. Of course, it never was. Gravity always works. And it was the seeds of that civilization's undoing.
And so the thing that keeps me up at night is the way in which there's not a focus on the implications of the debt and the deficit for every working American.
GLENN: So I will tell you, I am working on a book based on history, on that very thing.
MARK: Hmm.
GLENN: And I will tell you that -- I found it very hard to stay optimistic once you know history. But I have found what keeps me -- helps me back to sleep at night, what have you found that puts you back to sleep at night?
MARK: Engagement. You know, I think that people aren't dumb. At times in politics, we can fuse -- and I think even the president -- I say this most respectfully confuses -- they think it's about us. It's not about us. We're simply receptacles for people's ideas and ideals and the advancement of those ideas. And I would say that this election back in November was less about Donald Trump than it was about people's absolute mind-numbing frustration with the way that Washington was working for them.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: And so if we just simply separate ourselves just a touch -- it's not about me. It's about these ideas that people are ginned up on.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: What I will say is that we all ought -- right now, you walk into a restaurant, many times it used to be the sports channel that was up.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: Nowadays it's a news channel because people are focused on politics. And I think to that degree, engagement is exciting.
GLENN: Yeah. Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. Thank you very much. And, by the way, thank you for holding out for Nikki Haley. If we wouldn't have had you, we wouldn't have had her. She's doing a great job in the UN. But thank you for everything. We'll talk again soon.
MARK: Looking forward to it.
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford.
Are we destroying our minds with endless scrolling? Glenn reveals some shocking new evidence that Large Language Models (AI) trained on the same viral, low-quality internet junk we consume every day are experiencing rapid cognitive collapse — reasoning plummets, long-term memory vanishes, and even dark, narcissistic traits emerge. Worst of all? Even when scientists try to “detox” the AI with high-quality data, the damage is permanent. If we don’t choose to feed our minds better content — real books, deep conversation, silence, and reflection — we risk becoming a society that can’t think deeply, care deeply, or live freely… and we might be too far gone to even notice.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: The average person spends two hours and 21 minutes a day, on social media.
That's the average person! Two hours 21 minutes a day on social media.
Approximately 141 minutes every single day, scrolling.
The average American!
Our on screen time, overall, the average American spends six hours 38 minutes, every day, on screens, connected to the internet!
Oh, my gosh. Wow! Time just gone! Just vanished into -- into, what? Updates? Scrolls? What is it that we're reading?
Seriously, are we -- we exercising our soul with deep thought? Do you know that leash reading in the US has fallen?
Only 16 percent of Americans age 15-plus read for their own enjoyment on an average day? Fifteen [sic]. That number was almost 30 percent in 2003. Fewer books: US adults in 2021 said they read on average 12.6 books a year, down from 15 in 2002 to 2016.
So we're losing reading skills. We're losing deeper thought. We're losing hours of conversation. We're losing how many hours of reflection? At least minutes, maybe 100 minutes.
Our attention spans. How long can you focus on something?
You know, the second screen was different. When we first started TheBlaze, I talked about doing a second screen. Technology, and it wasn't because you couldn't watch something. They're now talking about taking your TV show or your -- your Netflix show, and dumbing it down so much because people are watching or they're scrolling while they're watching the TV. And so they can't follow a complex story line. Oh, my gosh!
We are just going to be stupid slugs. Everything that we're doing online is fracturing attention, memory, and sustained reasoning. And so at what point does this become an epidemic? At what point our are our minds starving for any kind of nutrition as we feed them calories of noise? Now let me tell you the real story. AI is holding a mirror up for us.
There's a new study that came out. LLMs can get brain rot. Okay? That caught my eye. Large language models, LLMs. They are trained on junk web content. So viral, shallow, high engagement stuff.
And all it does is it's just cataloging all this stuff and just consuming all of this stuff that we're scrolling through every day, okay? Do you know what's happening to the LLM?
It's experiencing cognitive decline. It can't -- its reasoning ability is dropping. Falling through the floor. Long context memory, gone!
And dark personality traits, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism has increased. This is within AI. Okay? And when the junk content ratio rose from zero to 100 percent, if you're just scrolling for junk, the reasoning benchmark falls from 75 percent to almost 55 percent.
Its ability to understand long -- you know, long form context, falls from 85 percent, to about 50 percent.
Now, here's the scariest part, they caught this and they're like, holy cow.
Look at what's happening to the large language model. It's completely decaying.
You know, we're just doing it for a year now, and look what's happened. It's not reasoning anymore. It's turning dark. It can't understand long form content anymore.
Let's get it off that!
Let's start putting good, clean stuff into it.
Even after retraining on clean high-quality data, the models never recover the baseline capacity.
Okay?
The rot remains!
As a man or now as a machine thinketh, so he becomes.
I just -- I've been blown away by this study, for the last few weeks. It came out a couple of weeks ago. I had it on my desk, and I wanted to tell you about it. And I just haven't had time.
And I just keep thinking. This is a machine. This is not our brain. This is -- this is a machine that is -- is using the same kind of crap.
I mean, what happens if you don't monitor what you think?
Or worse what?
When we stop thinking?
AI is teaching us a lesson. And I guarantee. This study has been out for weeks!
Never heard it, did you? Nobody is talking about it. It's screaming at us, "Hey, learn a lesson!"
When you feed nothing but lone nutrient attention-hooking, high engagement junk, the capacity to reason, to remember, and to care degrades.
Aren't we seeing this now? Do people care as much as they used to?
Nope! Can they reason?
Nope!
Can they remember what happened yesterday?
Nope. My gosh, don't worry about AI taking over, controlling us. Programming our lives. Look at ourselves. We've already -- we've already signed over our lives to an algorithm.
We're studying AI brain rot!
But is anybody studying, you know, brain, brain rot?
Maybe -- maybe we do recognize it. Maybe we do recognize it. But, you know, we're too apathetic to wean ourselves off the digital era.
It's hard. It is hard. But when the nature of what we ingest for body and mind becomes shallow, the body suffers. But mind sinks deeper.
And we live in an age where we might be less full of nourishment, but full of distraction.
We talk less. We actually listen less. We read fewer books.
You know, where our minds just flit instead of dive. Our attention span, it's almost gone. And make no mistake, this is not just a matter of convenience or lifestyle. This is creeping into the structure of who we are, individually, and collectively.
What is this going to do to -- to our children?
I mean, even if we stopped right now, and we wanted to change, we -- according to the brain rot study.
We won't get that baseline back. Do we pass this stuff on?
Is it getting to a point, to where we're just pumping out morons.
I mean, we're already doing that. I mean, really pumping out morons.
At what point is this an epidemic, where anybody even recognizes it?
When -- when is it where our ability to think critically is so diminished, we cannot be a free people?
Are we there yet?
I told you earlier, I went to the bookstore yesterday. My son and I went to the bookstore.
And I was like, we're getting books!
Because I haven't read. I've been reading online.
It's not the same. It's just not the same.
You've got -- you can't remember. Because you remember sometimes with your fingers. You remember where it is in the book. You know, I can never find anything digitally. I can never find where it is in the pook. I'm -- I'm looking for it.
I can't find it. But I know right where those facts are, if I'm reading a physical copy of a book. And, you know, deep reading. Quiet reflection. Sustained dialogue. Pretty rare! Pretty rare! Our mental health, our social health!
You know, kind of going down. You know, civic health. I wrote it. A little bit. I think we all agree with that.
Even when artificial intelligence trained on junk content degrade in reason, we still feed ourselves the same thing.
Are we going to keep doing that? Or are we going to choose to do something different?
Well, first thing, we have to get people to understand it.
Can we really?
Can we get people to actually listen to this?
And then engage again, in thoughtful reading and conversation. And meaningful silence.
It starts with awareness.
And then choice. What do you permit -- what are you going to put into your body?
What do you permit into your mind?
Otherwise, one day, we'll all look around. And we will realize.
We didn't just lose time. We lost the capacity to deeply think. Deeply connect.
Deeply live.
And then maybe again, maybe we're so stupid and shallow, we won't know.
I'm happy. Are you happy?
What was the question?
What are you saying?
Maybe that's -- maybe that's -- maybe that's a better life!
I love my family!
I don't know who my family is, but I love them! Politics. I don't vote. I haven't voted for a long time. Look at -- (laughter) TikTok! TikTok! TikTok! Okay?
It's up to us, America.
Texas officials are warning that foreign ideological networks, including CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates, and Sharia-aligned organizations, have already embedded themselves inside the state through political activism, funding pipelines, mosque expansion, Sharia courts, and aggressive community influence. Glenn Beck and Rep. Chip Roy explain why Texas is now the frontline of a coordinated movement that uses nonprofit status, immigration loopholes, campus activism, and foreign funding to undermine U.S. law and cultural stability. As Europe reels from decades of the same mistakes, Texas is declaring these groups a threat and moving to shut them down, but the question remains: Will America act in time to stop the network that’s already operating inside the country?
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Chip, when you saw this come from the governor, you and I have talked about things like this for a long time. This -- this -- we should have done this with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, a long time ago!
Instead, under -- I believe, it started really under George Bush. But then it just got worse and worse and worse.
We were letting CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood and everyone else, into our Department of Homeland Security. I mean, decades ago.
Tell me a little bit about why it's important. What Texas did.
And then let's follow it up with enforcement of that.
CHIP: Yeah. Well, first of all, you and I have talked about this for a long time, as I think I've talked to you on your show, it was the last substantive conversation I had with Charlie Kirk. Because it was very clear to me. It was clear on to him.
I think it was clear to you.
That our side, for way too long.
Even today. Thebe it's waking up. Have been asleep with the war on the left, that has been in process for decades.
Everybody is walking to London. They're waking up to Paris.
They're seeing now Dearborn. And Minneapolis.
And, oh, my gosh. Mamdani. Wait a minute. There's a problem in Texas too.
Some of us have been saying that for a while, and going back all the way to the Holy Land Foundation. Right? The Holy Land Foundation which was a Dallas/Ft. Worth issue, 25 years ago.
You and I talked about that last time. For listeners to understand how long this has gone back. You have unindicted coconspirators, associated with the Holy Land Foundation that are not tied to CAIR.
You have CAIR celebrating October 7th. You have all sorts of indications. In fact, the story yesterday in the New York Post.
Our friend Amy and her organization, they helped break that story, and having it out in the world. About the extent to which CAIR is tied, and their financial ties to the dispute issues on campuses.
All of the -- the connections that they have got with the radical terrorism, that we have to connect all of those dots.
And now, for the governor. I think, appropriately, you know, they've been targeting. They passed something in the legislature next spring.
We have to be much more aggressive. The governor is right to be aggressive here. This will have increased scrutiny and tools, and now I have to dive into exactly what those tools are, with respect to what it opens up to on the state level.
But the mere statement by the governor that both -- obviously, dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. But CAIR. That CAIR is, in fact, an organization that we should treat as such is so critically important. Because it's masquerading as some, you know, oh, the councilman. You know, of American Islamic relations are -- it's crazy.
Like it's -- and the idea that they should get tax breaks is insane.
Which is why I introduced legislation to introduce their tax benefits.
That's the bear minimum.
I can tell you, but I can't go too far into it. Lots of really good conversations are occurring with the appropriate official law enforcement entities in Washington, to follow the money.
We've got to follow the money. I believe that there's a criminal organization, that is connecting all of these dots. You and I talked about that before.
It's not just the Islam issue. The Islamification of America, but also the Soros DAs, the open borders, Antifa. Southern Poverty Law Center. And, by the way, SPLC is now putting a target on me, because I'm daring to speak out about this.
It's all connected. It's all connected, Glenn.
GLENN: So what is it the state can do?
I mean, first of all, I think for anybody who doesn't understand, and, Texans, wake up!
If you lose Texas, you lose the West!
As Texas goes, so goes America.
And as America goes. So go the rest of the world.
And, you know, if you're looking at Dearborn. You're looking at, you know, these places in Minnesota.
And you're seeing that.
And you think that's not related to you.
It is worse in Texas. The numbers in Texas are staggering! And what they're -- I mean, just what's happening in the small little town that -- my studios are in.
It's the most diverse ZIP code in America. Las Colinas, Texas.
And I've been ringing this bell for 12 years when I first got there.
I started doing stuff on the Sharia law. The movement to bring Sharia law to Las Colinas, Texas.
And, Chip, I got to send you a copy of this interview I just did. I did it with the imams in the -- the biggest mosque in Las Colinas.
And one of them halfway through just blurted out, yeah, we all agree, hands should be chopped off if you steal. And I just let him go for a while. And it was clear, Sharia law is happening.
And now they have put these Sharia courts into place, to has come things. Because, well, it's their right to has come it as a religion.
No. No. No.
Not when it comes to usurping the Constitution of Texas or the United States of America. And that's happening now in Texas!
So give me. Give the person who is not necessarily paying attention some idea of what is coming and is here already in Texas.
JASON: Well, first of all, you know, you've got an explosive growth of the mosques that are growing in Texas.
We have over 300 and counting. More being planted in Texas, every day, than any other state in the union. You've got the Islamic center down in Houston, which is 150,000 square feet. That has major issues.
You noticed. I saw that imam down in Houston, going, well, you can't take this on the shelf.
They're trying to take over and change what should be done down here with the implementation of Sharia. There are activist Sharia courts in Texas, which the government rightly yesterday said, they're going to shut down, because they're in conflict with Texas law. And notably, what he's doing with the Declaration.
The governor is making very clear, that he connect the dots with the legislation, that the legislature passed.
With that declaration to say, no land and can be acquired with anybody associated with these organizations.
Now, again, I think this is the tip of the spear.
I think -- I don't mean this negatively. It's kind of obvious. Let's go after these guys. But there are myriad organizations that these will go after and shut down.
Let's be clear. I don't even know why we are allowing any foreign nationals to own Texas land.
GLENN: I don't either.
CHIP: Literally, let's just be very aggressive, and very clear.
I don't why massive corporations are owning our land, by the way. Separate issue, but all related. I'm bothered also by boardrooms in New York buying up our ranches and meat packing plants and everything else.
GLENN: Me too.
CHIP: Because, again, it's all related. The red/green alliance, the Marxist Islamic issue is all connected to root out and destroy western civilization. So that is to say, what the governor did is really critically important. It is a step so that we can go stop some of these things in these enclaves like Epic City.
But we need to be much more aggressive. And, again, I introduced legislation as you know to vet people for Sharia law and adherence to Sharia law when we're admitting them to the United States.
But today, I'm filing a bill called The Pause Act, to pause all immigration, until we have sorted our crap out, until we dealt with H-1Bs. Until we got rid of diversity and -- diversity chain migration. So we dealt with the veto, which, by the way, we need to challenge, which is the Supreme Court case thing that says we must educate illegal children. Until we've dealt with birthright citizenship. Until we've cleaned up our mess.
Until we've put in place, standards for not admitting people that are inherent to Sharia Law. Why are we importing more people?
Let's put Americans to work. Let's stop destroying our culture. Let's freeze it in Texas. Let's do exactly what the governor is doing, and more!
STU: Did you see what's happening in Germany?
In Germany, one of their ministers said, there's no longer a problem in Syria. The war is over. It's peaceful. Everyone in Germany who came for refugee status to Germany, you're all going home. Now, they're not going to do it. However, they did strip citizenship from a Serbian immigrant who praised Hamas as heroes. And this same minister came out and said, you know, your citizenship has to be contingent on shared systems of values.
And they're starting, at least to talk about stepping -- stepping up.
I think this is the right thing to do. Have we thought about -- have we thought about if you have refugee status, and your part of the world has now calmed down going, get out. Go home.
CHIP: Absolutely, we should do that. We have been talking about that, and the need to reverse, frankly, the abuse. There's two elements, okay? The reversal of the abuse of asylum, parole, refugee laws that were abused. Right?
You had people coming in, who really weren't in need of refugee status. Or weren't actually qualified for asylum. And they were abusing paroles on a case-by-case basis. So there's that whole mess. Then when you have a legitimate case for asylum or for refugee status, then we should review those. And say, okay. Guess what? They have calmed down. You can go back! Those are very specific provisions and laws.
You know, they're designed for that specific persecution, or very specific situations in war and otherwise. And when that's no longer the case, then you no longer have the reason to have that qualified status in the United States. So we should address that.
But let's remember, Glenn, I think it's so important, that we have to understand. Like, we're talking about the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't have it right in front of me. But I read that the proclamation by the governor. He was pointing out, that, you know, when that organization was founded like 100 years ago, or something.
Early last century. That it was founded. It was very specific about jihad. And very specific about jihad being an obligation.
Right.
And if that obligation comes from Allah. And that's for everybody adherent to Islam, in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so understand what's happening!
And people need to realize that. Because this is -- everybody wants to go and say, well, you know, we can't talk about the First Amendment.
Bull! That is not true. Okay?
First of all, we can talk about it because of the First Amendment. Second of all, we can talk about it, because, yes. You can believe what you want. Right?
Our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights says that. But when you are turning that into a political movement, designed very specifically. To undermine our country.
And you undermine the rule of law. Then, no.
You do not have a right to do that. You certainly don't have a right to be admitted into our country.
And we need to recognize that and address it, or we're going to lose. And then we're going to be like Germany. And we're going to be like London or we're going to be like Paris. And we will be looking around going, what do we do now?
Right? We have 10 percent of the population, and growing. And, you know, 1500 seats in elected officials throughout the United Kingdom.
You've got 85 jurisdictions in Scotland, where they can choose Sharia law instead of -- as an alternative to Scottish law. We can't get to that point.
We have to stop this right now.
America just crossed a constitutional red line — and Glenn Beck breaks down why this moment may be the one historians look back on as the final warning before national fracture. From Congress signaling military insubordination, to judges erasing separation-of-powers, to a cultural class obsessed with ideology instead of safeguarding the republic, the “Bubba Effect” is now in full force. Glenn explains why collapsing institutions, media silence, and public distrust are creating a perfect storm — and why citizenship, not rage, is the only path to restoring the republic. Are we witnessing the moment America snaps, or the moment Americans finally wake up?
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.
We're glad you're here. I want to talk to you today. Today's theme of the show is the Bubba Effect. Because it's here. And we are seeing it in full force. I will show it to you in Dearborn, Michigan. I will show it to you with Nick Fuentes. I will show it to you, with Epstein.
And I just showed it to you, a different kind of the Bubba Effect, institutional Bubba Effect. With that statement that came out, you know, telling the troops to, you know, disown, you know, the president. Or don't -- don't follow orders.
Question orders.
And you should do that. And that is something they're taught in the military. But they're taught within the system.
You know, it's not just that they made a message to the military.
They sent that message.
Imagine if the Duma would have sent that message to Putin. And we received it, and saw it. We would be like, their government is fall apart.
Their military is falling apart.
Look at this. What message is that sending to China and Russia and all their allies.
It's bad. It's very bad. There is a moment in every republic. Every empire. Every nation. The historians will look back and say, yep. That was it.
That was the biggest warning. That was the last warning.
And I think we are living in that moment right now.
When Congress told active duty military to ignore the orders of the commander-in-chief, you've got a problem.
When you can't get a federal judge impeached, because he approved something that has never been done in American history.
Granting one branch of the government, the right to secretly surveil the other without notice.
You have to -- constitutionally, you must notify you're under surveillance.
Okay?
If they're doing a mass thing. You have to notify.
Because that's a second branch!
Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?
These are not political stories.
These are constitutional earthquakes.
And no one is talking about them! So now the question is: What now?
What has to happen, if the republic has to survive the stress of these fractures. That everybody seems to be creating or dancing on.
Let me outline it plainly here. Because all of us have a role. One, Congress. Congress, you have to discipline your own. If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority.
You cannot police the executive branch. You can't oversee the intelligence agencies. You can't demand transparency, if you cannot police your own members.
Censure is not vengeance. It's maintenance. It's routine. It's necessary.
Constitutional maintenance. And if Congress refuses to do it, then the precedent remains. It gets worse.
And history shows us, no nation survives a politicized military. Ever!
Two, the military.
You to have restate the -- the chain of command.
Publicly and immediately. The Joint Chiefs don't need a press conference. They don't need hearings. They just need to say, the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president.
That sentence, those exact words, that's the firewall between an American republic, and every failed nation in history.
The silence so far is not reassuring.
Three, the judiciary.
Especially the Supreme Court. Close the door on the book -- the Boasberg case! He opened a door that is so dangerous.
No judge, no matter how noble his intentions, has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers.
If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances! You had a surveillance government. The Supreme Court must intervene. Not Trump! Not even Congress. But for the survival of coequal branches, if they don't, this is the new normal!
And you don't come back from that one, either! And now, the hardest part, the that one everybody talks about. Nobody does. The role of the cultural leaders and people like me in the media. In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in!
This is where the cultural leaders. The voices, left, right, center, stop obsessing over click bait. And start explaining to the people, what just happened. Why it's unprecedented, why it matters. How we as citizens need to respond. But look around. Do you see anyone in the press doing that?
Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?
Do you see anyone in academia doing that? No. You don't. Because America's cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic. Who is the guardian?
They're guardians of ideology. So what do we do?
Well, we do what Americans have always done, when institutionals fail. We step in our self. But if we don't care, that's it.
The Founders never trusted the press.
They trusted the people.
So that's where we are now.
And we all have to model what a responsible media. Or a responsible citizen should be doing.
So let me show you right now, how a responsible broadcaster responds to a constitutional breach.
My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.
This is not about Democrats. This is not about Republicans.
It's not how you vote.
This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.
Whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges, that want to erase the separation of powers!
The separation of power is what has kept this constitutional republic going for all of these years!
Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic. And if the mainstream media won't tell you, then I will!
That right there, is the job. To preserve the republic!
So our children and grandchildren and that is what we all should be doing. That's what the press should be doing. That's what the cultural figures should be doing.
You call out the violations of Constitutional order, no matter who benefits. No matter who gets angry. No matter what tribe demands your silence. This is what leadership looks like!
This is wrong! This has never been done before. This breaks Constitutional boundaries.
And it has to be corrected immediately!
Americans, you understand the Bubba Effect is here. And it's everywhere!
You're going to see people that you're like, well, he's really wrong on that! And that's really outrageous. And I don't agree with that.
But at least he's right on this one!
And it will always be to question the system. To break it down.
So what do you do?
Well, you don't riot. You don't panic. You don't is it fair. We're headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear. Give thanks because our liberty, our freedom, should we decide to keep it, will be more valuable to us.
But you should call your representatives. I'm so sick of calling my representatives. But you should do it anyway.
You need to demand transparency. You need to insist on consequences! Don't normalize what is happening. Well, they're all like that! Stop it!
Stop it.
If that's what you expect, that is what you will get. But understand this: The cure for Constitutional drift is not rage. The answer is not anger. It's not division. It is citizenship!
It's also not apathy. If we sleep through this, the system will break, guaranteed.
But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen! I know you're tired.
I know you don't want to do it anymore. I know you're just desperate for an answer. Because the time is running short.
But now is not the time to act in -- in ways where we dishonor ourselves. In ways where we -- we throw in with a lot. We're like, that's really bad!
But at least they're pointing it out. You point it out! Once you start standing up, once we as a people, all you need is 20 percent! Twenty percent. Anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of the American people. If they understand the Constitution, if they understand the Bill of Rights. If they understand that God has put us in this place, at this time, and each of us have a reason to live!
We're here for a reason!
Everything snaps back into place!
It always has!
From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.
Institutions bend.
People break. But the Constitution can be restored.
But if -- and only if, you know it, you love it. You never betray it yourself, and you demand it of the people who represent us.
New evidence suggests that JPMorgan Chase overlooked 5,000 "yellow ticket" suspiciouos activity flags connected to Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in #1.$ BILLION in sketchy transactions. Glenn Beck explains why this may be the scandal that finally brings some of Epstein's enablers to justice.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So where does the real story lie with the Epstein story? And I think it's the money, okay?
That's the real story. I'll tell you about the billions who have gone to terrorists from the US and Minnesota taxpayers here in a second.
And when I talk about that, what most people will do, is they'll fight over ICE.
They'll say it's Islamophobia. They'll fight over CAIR. Whatever. USAID, when that went down. Well, that's just about feeding hungry children. It's all misdirection, to get you away from the money. So let me bring this now to Epstein.
When a banker detects suspicious activity, when they see something that looks like money laundering. Human trafficking. Tax evasion. Sending money overseas to terrorists. They don't send a polite note to the supervisor, in hopes somebody reads it.
They are required by federal law, after 9/11, to file what is called a SAR. It's a Suspicious Activity Report.
A SAR.
They have to report that directly to the US Treasury Department. Through FinCEN. Financial center of crimes. Okay?
Once a SAR is filed. The bank isn't even allowed to tell you that they filed it. They just hit send. It's locked. The Treasury is notified. Now, this system like I said, was built after 9/11.
Built after decades of financial corruption.
A system design that no single banker. No single executive. No single billionaire can make illicit money and then have it just disappear offshore.
This is -- this is activated. If you draw $10,000 out, of your account. You are moving $10,000. You get a SAR report. And it goes directly to the Treasury. And when the bank flags something suspicious, it's called -- the SAR is called a yellow ticket. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a memo. It is a federal alert. That triggers monitoring by the Treasury, the FBI, Homeland Security. Depending on what the flags indicate. Now, that you understand that, let me talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.
Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan Chase filed seven SARS. Seven yellow tickets on Epstein. Seven! Over 14 years. Those reports flagged a grand total of $4.3 million in sketchy activity.
Okay. It's all -- you know, it's a decade replace plus, $4 million.
You can make all kinds of excuses for that. Right? But after Epstein died, when the government finally unsealed the sex trafficking details, details that they had held on to for years. JP Morgan Chase suddenly panicked. Because the floodgates suddenly opened. In 2019, two SARS were flagged. Two SARS were sent to the Treasury.
They flagged over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers. We're not talking $4 million.
This is 1.3 billion dollars. Five thousand suspicious activity transfers, and transactions, of 1.3 billion dollars.
Now, let me just say this clearly, so nobody really misses the gravity of this. You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires.
You don't like, where did we put that $1.3 billion.
Okay. You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires, to foreign banks and Shell companies, connected to then a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen.
It doesn't happen, because a Jr banker made a mistake.
It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full.
To not report that level of suspicious activities directly to the Treasury, first of all, is against all federal law.
And at a minimum, multiple officers, multiple departments. Multiple signoffs, choosing not to look.
$1.3 billion. 5,000 suspicious activities. Hmm.
Why?
Why did nobody report that?
Well, now, according to internal emails, JP Morgan Chase held off the filing of the SARS. Now, let me ask you this: If you had one suspicious -- if you withdrew $10,000 from your bank, are you really clear that your bank would do what the federal government directs. And I have to report this.
And it's going to go to the Treasury. Are you clear that they would do that on you?
Because the answer is, yes, they would. Federal law requires it!
But the bank decided, well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable. He's connected. He's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world.
He had sensitivities according to the bank. Wire transfers to Russian banks. Wire transfers to Shell corporations. Wire transfers from a guy who is engaged in sex trafficking.
Links to top political figures. Relationships with two US presidents. Both of whom Epstein at various times claimed to be very, very close with.
Let me explain: Something that most people don't know. Banks file SARS, suspicious activity reports, to the Treasury, for far less than this.
$10,000. They flag it. A business wires to an unusual location. They flag it!
It's sent to the Treasury. A client sends repetitive round number transfers to an unknown entity. They flag it!
It goes to the Treasury. A wire connected to anything resembling terror or human trafficking or exploitation. They flag it right now.
Banks don't wait for a 5,000 -- for 5,000 suspicious transactions. They don't wait. They file over one!
So how did Epstein get through 5,000 suspicious activity reports without triggering any alarms.
Not because the alarms were broken. Because they weren't. It's because somebody turned them off.
I would like to know who turned those off.
I would like to know, why they were turned off? I would like to know, if it was just the leadership of the bank. I would like to know, that every single one of those bank officers. All the way to the top, go to prison!
Not some slap on the wrist. Not some, well, you're well-connected. So we're going to let this other guy pay for it.
I want all of them in prison. You broke federal law!
Something we all -- all of us have to abide by.
We -- we have had our Treasury. We've had our government snoop into our lives. Watch everything we do. And we're not connected to human trafficking. We're not selling children. We're not convicted felons.
We're not transferring 1.3 billion dollars after we've been convicted.
SARS are not -- these suspicious activity reports, they are not decided by a single teller. They have to pass -- they pass through compliance teams. Risk divisions. Bank lawyers. Federal liaison officers. This isn't one bad apple. It's an entire system. And Senator Wyden, no conservative firebrand, I might point out, is now openly saying what everybody knows privately. JP Morgan Chase should face criminal investigations, and it should go all the way to the top!
And it should not be civil. It should be criminal. Because if you or I did this, if we had sent just a handful suspicious wires, the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury, before you could blink!
But Jeffrey Epstein, a billion dollars worth of exceptions. Hmm. Hmm.
Wow. That seems much more important than a stupid birthday card!
Let me ask you this, the question the DOJ doesn't want to touch.
How many people does it take inside a bank to make 5,000 suspicious transactions just vanish for 17 years? Is it five people? Is it ten? Is it a department head, a board member?
Five thousand. 1.3 billion dollars. Was Epstein. Did it happen because Epstein was useful to the powerful?
So nobody wanted to know. Did this happen because others were involved?
Does it really matter what their excuse was?
Here's the terrifying question. If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker. What else have the banks learned to ignore?
Hmm.
I'm beginning to think the banks are a real problem. Hmm.
There's a new idea.
This story isn't just about Epstein.
This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate. All of the middleman. All of the financial networks. All of the institutions, that treated him like an asset, instead of a criminal.
And I do believe he was an asset. Intelligence asset.
I do believe he was probably an asset to our intelligence. Although, you I hear both sides.
No, no, no. That's not true. Oh, yes. It's definitely true.
I don't know what the truth is. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, he was an asset for a foreign government. Maybe Israel.
Maybe somebody else. I don't know.
But also an asset for us.
That helps all the. Apparently.
We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?
Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.
Well, good!
For the first time in a long time, maybe the money is finally pointing us somewhere. And it's not just here.
And, by the way, if anybody still believes this ends with one dead man in jail. I don't think you're paying attention!
Because this is where it really leads.
